Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Orwell's Struggle May Be Over
American Thinker ^ | November 22, 2012 | Ed Kaitz

Posted on 11/22/2012 5:45:29 AM PST by No One Special

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: No One Special
The reason so many so-called intellectuals gravitate to socialism is a simple one: they think that as the smartest people, they are allowed to tell others not as brilliant as they are how to run their lives. There were certainly plenty of ex-socialists who seeing the what the tyranny of a centralized government could do, ditched their love of ordered tyranny. Orwell was not one of them.

It's a mystery to me, and many others, how someone who could write a book (1984) clearly aimed at a Stalinist-type of society could fail to understand that all attempts to centralize power leads to tyranny. In short, instead of proving their love of humanity, the intellectual love of socialism proves their intense dislike of human beings. People must be controlled for their own good.

21 posted on 11/22/2012 10:10:35 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger

If you are referring to Orwell, he didn’t have any movie sales in his lifetime, and never made more than a subsistence living from his books. He was not famous or a celebrity in his lifetime.


22 posted on 11/22/2012 12:19:48 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: melsec; supremedoctrine
Your post #19 comments on supremedoctrine's observation that:

"This article though, is flawed in its own way, and doesn't take into account the historical period that Orwell matured in"

I can agree entirely and I have read both "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Down and out in London and Paris". Few persons can have endured the hard scrabble years of the 1930's. My childhood memories are still with me from that era. Army child though and we at least ate (chuckle).

Orwell was opposed to the elite English Public School system (a misnomer, if one is American). The taxpayer funded an almost closed system of privilege. He thought the new Socialist government should at least withdraw taxpayer funds and let these institutions pay their own way. Orwell was disgusted as the socialist ranters against such an elite system, then sent their own sons and daughters to those very schools. They had arrived of course!

A bit of a late ramble by me up in Great Lakes Country- Canada/USA. The temperature hit 17 cel today and I just got out and did stuff, prior to the expected snow and freezing temperatures.

23 posted on 11/22/2012 6:41:28 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra

Down and Out in Paris and London
——an unforgettable book. A perfect example of Orwell’s
stubborn insistence, as cited elsewhere in the thread, to look at life exactly as it presented itself to him ‘in front of his eyes”.


24 posted on 11/22/2012 7:19:25 PM PST by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra

Have read all his books and enjoyed most. His descriptions of life at that time are harrowing. I admire him and his works greatly and continue in understanding of the world because of them.

35C here today in Aus - summer is here!

Blessings

Mel


25 posted on 11/23/2012 3:51:18 PM PST by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Never heard of Pareto or his law. That is very iteresting. Thanks so much for the post and the link.


26 posted on 11/23/2012 4:35:24 PM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Thanks. Paretos’ Law stands for the simple scientific fact that economic equality is an impossibility. We need to rub this into liberal noses at every turn.


27 posted on 11/23/2012 4:38:01 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

We also need to recognize the possibility that 20% of the people are power mongers who need to tell others what to do. Those, of course, are mostly on the left. We need to identify these people and blow their cover.


28 posted on 11/23/2012 5:42:12 PM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
Indeed. What we're fighting for in very basic terms is to improve the lot of all by incentivizing the productive 20% to produce as much as possible for as long as possible thereby achieving sustained growth. We do that by letting the 20% of producers keep what they make and pass it along to their loved ones. Actually, now that you mention it, what we're doing is fighting to keep the producers in the 20% wealth slot because this is best for all. We're fighting to keep the power mad (back to Orwell) out.

You know, you just made me realize something else about "1984." Orwell described Oceanic society as a basic 80/20 split:

Below Big Brother comes the Inner Party, its numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of Oceania. Below the Inner Party comes the Outer Party, which, if the Inner Party is described as the brain of the State, may be justly likened to the hands. Below that come the dumb masses whom we habitually refer to as 'the proles', numbering perhaps 85 per cent of the population.

29 posted on 11/23/2012 6:15:01 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

I forget what little I ever knew about statistics but we’re probably talking about the normal distribution of human characteristics of any sort. There will always be those that stand out from others and the real stand outs will be a minority, 20% or less. I look back at growing up and the athletes that were in my classes. There was always a superstar or two in every class but from those at the top it trailed off to those who could only “throw like a girl.”

I read this article that applies the principle to more that just economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Now if only the media would pick up and expose the idea.


30 posted on 11/23/2012 6:30:57 PM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

What I call “the manual” from 1984 is online:
The Theory And Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism:
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html

The first chapter, “Ignorance is Strength”, makes so much sense to me it is scary. I am sure the left understands the truth that is embodied in it and what is worse, they know how to use it to gain and consolidate power.


31 posted on 11/23/2012 6:38:24 PM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
Pareto's Law does apply to nearly every biological system. By the way, it's also true for any group within the group. So, for example, if you're looking at the top 20%, you'll find that 20% of them produce 80% of the top 20 percent's wealth. If you take the top five richest dudes in the world, you'd find a similar distribution, at least over time. I like to think of it like Russian matryoshka dolls.

It's like a gyroscope. You can push it one way or the other, but it will tend toward the 80/20 split.

Like I said, it relates to energy conservation in biological systems. There's a branch of economics called "econophysics" that developed from this insight.

But, it's not news by any stretch of the imagination. Guys like Krugman surely know that any system will move to the 80/20 split.

32 posted on 11/23/2012 6:41:26 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
Thought you'd be interested in today's quote from Cafe Hayek:
It is not the countries with abundant raw materials that have grown fastest, and often they are held back, because natural assets give rise to internal conflicts. No, the main reason for the 20 per cent [of the world's population] consuming 80 per cent of resources is that they produce 80 per cent of resources. The 80 per cent consume only 20 per cent because they only produce 20 per cent of resources. It is this latter problem we ought to tackle, the inadequate creative and productive capacity of the poor countries of the world, instead of waxing indignant over the affluent world producing so much. The problem is that many people are poor, and not that certain people are rich. - Johan Norberg
The post is here.
33 posted on 11/24/2012 2:15:07 PM PST by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: No One Special

Thanks for this.


34 posted on 11/24/2012 2:45:47 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson